[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74848-74857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21151]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 54
[Docket Nos. PRM-54-02 and PRM-54-03]
Andrew J. Spano and Joseph C. Scarpelli; Denials of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petitions for rulemaking; denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying two nearly
identical petitions for rulemaking submitted by Andrew J. Spano, County
Executive, Westchester County, New York (PRM-54-02), and Mayor Joseph
Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey (PRM-54-03). The petitioners
requested that the NRC amend its regulations to provide that the agency
renew a license only if the plant operator demonstrates that the plant
meets all criteria and requirements that would apply if it were
proposing the plant de novo for initial construction. The petitioners
assert that amendments are necessary because they believe the process
and criteria established in the Commission's license renewal
regulations are seriously flawed and should consider critical plant-
specific factors as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, and
site security. The NRC is denying the petitions because the petitioners
raise issues that the Commission has already considered at length in
developing the license renewal rule. These issues are managed by the
on-going regulatory process or under other regulations; or are issues
beyond the Commission's regulatory authority. The petitioners did not
present new information that would contradict positions taken by the
Commission when the license renewal rule was established or demonstrate
that sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations.
ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to these petitions,
including the petitions, public comments received, and the NRC's
letters of denial to the petitioners, may be viewed electronically on
public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected
documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415-
4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-2771, e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The NRC received two separate, but nearly identical, petitions for
rulemaking in 2005 requesting that part 54, Requirements for renewal of
operating licenses for nuclear power plants be amended. Mr. Andrew J.
Spano, the County Executive of Westchester County, New York, filed the
first petition on May 10, 2005, which was assigned Docket No. PRM-54-
02. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition and request
for public comment in the Federal Register on June 15, 2005 (70 FR
34700). Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey, filed
the second petition on July 20, 2005, which was assigned Docket Number
PRM-54-03.\1\ The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition and
request for public comment in the Federal Register on September 14,
2005 (70 FR 54310). Because of the similarities to PRM-54-02, Mayor
[[Page 74849]]
Scarpelli also requested that his petition be joined with Mr. Spano's.
The NRC agrees that the issues raised in these petitions and some of
the public comments are nearly identical, and thus it is appropriate to
evaluate the petitions together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attorney Michelle R. Donato actually filed PRM-54-03 on
behalf of Mayor Scarpelli, the New Jersey Environmental Federation
(NJEF), and the New Jersey Sierra Club (NJSC). Although Ms. Donato's
letter indicates that she is presenting three ``formal'' petitions
to the NRC, the submissions from NJEF and NJSC state that they are
submitted ``in support of'' or joining Mayor Scarpelli's petition.
They do not appear to request petitioner status. Thus, any reference
in this document to the PRM-54-03 petitioner is limited to Mayor
Scarpelli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRM-54-02 (Mr. Andrew J. Spano)
Westchester County is a political subdivision and municipality of
the State of New York, and is located immediately north of New York
City. It is 450 square miles in size. It has a southern border with New
York City (Bronx County) and a northern border with Putnam County. It
is flanked on the west side by the Hudson River and on the east side by
Long Island Sound and Fairfield County, Connecticut. The total
population of Westchester County, as measured in the 2000 Census, is
923,459. The 2000 population is over 100,000 more than it was as
measured in the 1960 Census.
Westchester County is the host county for the Indian Point Energy
Facility (Indian Point or IP), located in the Village of Buchanan, Town
of Cortlandt. There are two nuclear power units at Indian Point: IP2
and IP3. These are currently operated by single purpose entities
controlled by the Entergy Corporation (Entergy). IP2 & IP3's operating
licenses are scheduled to expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively, and
Mr. Spano believes that in accordance with industry trends, Entergy
could apply for license extensions for up to an additional twenty
years, provided certain operating, environmental, and safety conditions
are met.
Mr. Spano stated that because of the presence of Indian Point,
Westchester County has long had an interest and concern with the
environmental, emergency, and public safety issues with respect to
Indian Point. Mr. Spano further stated that after living with nuclear
power plants for the past three decades, several events have changed
the local community's perspective on the continued presence of the
Indian Point facility: Three Mile Island-2, the Browns Ferry fire,
utility bankruptcies, the Chernobyl accident, delays at Yucca Mountain,
Davis-Besse reactor head problems, and the events of September 11,
2001. He believes that as a result of these events, orders for the
construction of reactor facilities have ceased and the public has
become justifiably concerned about nuclear power plant safety. Mr.
Spano stated that these concerns are particularly sensitive at Indian
Point, because of its proximity to major population centers, periodic
leaks of radioactive material, difficult (if not impossible) evacuation
issues, and its proximity to the events which occurred at the World
Trade Center.
PRM-54-03 (Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli)
Brick Township, New Jersey is situated in the northern part of
Ocean County, directly on the border of Monmouth County, and is located
approximately 18 miles north of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
(Oyster Creek or OCNGS). Mayor Scarpelli stated that Ocean County is
located on the Jersey Shore, approximately 50 miles south of New York
City and 50 miles east of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ocean County
encompasses nearly 640 square miles. Mayor Scarpelli stated that Ocean
County's location on the Atlantic Ocean makes it one of the premier
tourist destinations in the United States.
Oyster Creek, which is located in Lacey Township, became
operational in 1969. In 1970, one year after Oyster Creek began
producing electricity, Ocean County, New Jersey had 208,470 residents.
Mayor Scarpelli also stated that according to the 2000 Census, Ocean
County today has 510,916 residents, a growth of over 245 percent. Mayor
Scarpelli also stated that Brick Township has experienced great growth
over the past four decades, and that Brick Township is presently home
to over 77,000 residents as compared to the 35,057 residents it claimed
in 1970.
Mayor Scarpelli stated that there have been numerous incidents that
have occurred since Oyster Creek began operating that have raised
concerns about the safety and security of nuclear power, particularly
in densely populated areas, including the near catastrophe at Three
Mile Island, the realized catastrophe at Chernobyl, the controversy
about Yucca Mountain, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mayor Scarpelli is particularly concerned that the evacuation of the
communities surrounding Oyster Creek requires extensive review and
consideration because of the growing concern of traffic congestion in
Ocean County due to an aging infrastructure that has not kept up with
the population growth.
The Petitions
Both petitions present nearly identical issues and requests for
rulemaking. Both petitioners believe that the license renewal process
and criteria currently established in part 54 are ``seriously flawed.''
They argue that the process for license renewal appears to be based on
the theory that if the plant was originally safe to be licensed at the
site, it would also be satisfactory to renew the license, barring any
significant issues involving passive structures, systems, and
components. The petitioners further suggest that many key factors
affecting nuclear plant licensing evolve over time, in that the
population grows; local, State, and Federal regulations evolve; public
awareness increases; technology improves; and plant economic values
change. As a result, roads and infrastructure required for a successful
evacuation may not improve along with population density, inspection
methods may not be adopted or may be used inappropriately, and
regulations may alter the plant design after commercial operation.
According to the petitioners, the license renewal process under 10 CFR
part 54 inappropriately excludes these factors. Mr. Spano also
suggested that, before the concept of license renewal for nuclear power
plants was established, it was generally assumed that plants would
exist as operating facilities for the rest of their design life and
then would enter a decommissioning phase. He stated that this
assumption is supported by the fact that the collection of
decommissioning funds from ratepayers initiated in the 1970s was based
on a 40-year life of the facility.
Both petitions set forth a list of ``key renewal issues,'' that are
stated as questions the petitioners believe are necessary to confront
during the license renewal process. Mr Spano lists five such ``key
renewal issues:''
(1) Could a new plant, designed and built to current standards,
be licensed on the same site today? For example, given the
population growth in Westchester County, it is uncertain if Indian
Point would be licensed today. The population in the areas near
Indian Point has outpaced the capacity of the road infrastructure to
support it, making effective evacuation in an emergency unlikely.
(2) Have the local societal and infrastructure factors that
influenced the original plant licensing changed in a manner that
would make the plant less apt to be licensed today? For example,
three of four counties surrounding Indian Point have not submitted
certified letters in support of the emergency evacuation plan. That
would not be a consideration under the current licensing process.
However, the inability of local governments to support the safety of
the evacuation plan should, at the very least, give serious pause
before the licenses of the plants are renewed.
(3) Can the plant be modified to assure public health and safety
in a post-9/11 era? For example, Indian Point cannot be made
sufficiently safe according to James Lee Witt, former head of FEMA.
(4) Have local/State regulations changed that would affect the
plant's continued operation? For example, Indian Point must convert
from once-through cooling to a closed-cycle design using cooling
towers.
[[Page 74850]]
(5) The original design basis of older nuclear power plants did
not include extended onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). At
Indian Point for example, the current SNF storage plan includes one
or more Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations onsite, which
increases the overall risk to the local community.
Mayor Scarpelli identifies six similarly phrased ``key renewal
issues:''
(1) Could a new plant, designed and built to current standards,
be licensed on the same site today? With the growth of Ocean County,
which continues today, it is not certain that a nuclear plant would
be permitted there today.
(2) The design of Oyster Creek's reactor has been prohibited for
nearly four decades. Does that reactor conform to today's standards?
Would Oyster Creek receive a license today with that reactor?
(3) In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
would Oyster Creek's storage system, which is located close to Route
9, be acceptable today?
(4) Is the evacuation plan realistic in today's Ocean County?
Would the tremendous growth of Ocean County over the past four
decades, and the failure of Ocean County's infrastructure to keep
pace with this growth, inhibit Oyster Creek's likelihood of
receiving an operating license?
(5) Would a license be permitted in light of the public
opposition to the plant? To date, 21 municipalities in Ocean County,
as well as Congressmen Smith, Saxton and Pallone, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley, and the
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, have expressed either
their concern for a thorough review and/or their opposition to the
re-licensing.
(6) In recent weeks, two studies released by the National
Academy of Sciences have raised serious concerns about nuclear plant
security and the health effects of low-level radiation upon people
who reside near nuclear plants. Should these two scientific studies
and other relevant scientific data regarding human health and anti-
terrorism be taken into account when considering Oyster Creek's
license renewal application?
II. The Proposed Amendments
The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its regulations to
provide that it will issue a renewed license only if the plant operator
demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and requirements that
would apply if it were proposing the plant de novo for an initial
construction permit and operating license. The petitioners therefore
requested that the NRC amend Sec. 54.29 to provide that the Commission
will issue a renewed license only if it finds that, upon a de novo
review, the plant would be entitled to an initial operating license in
accordance with all criteria applicable to initial operating licenses,
as set out in the Commission's regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2,
19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 73, 100, and the appendices to
these regulations. The petitioners also requested that the NRC make
corresponding amendments to Sec. Sec. 54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23,
and rescind Sec. 54.30. The petitioners stated that the criteria to be
examined as part of a renewal application should include factors such
as demographics, siting, emergency evacuation, and site security. The
petitioners believe that in undertaking this analysis the NRC should
focus on the critical plant-specific factors and conditions that have
the greatest potential to affect public safety.
III. Public Comments Received on the Petitions
The NRC received 21 comment letters on PRM-54-02. Fifteen letters
support the granting of the petition and six support denying the
petition. On PRM-54-03, the NRC received four letters. One letter
supports granting the petition and three letters support denial.
Letters in Support of Granting the Petitions
Eleven letters of support came from individuals and five came from
public interest groups or individuals affiliated with public interest
groups. The public interest groups are Riverkeeper, Nuclear Free
Vermont, Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program (CMEP), which is
part of Public Citizen, Public Citizen, and the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service. Most of the letters are short statements of support
and echo the petitioners concerns about emergency planning, evacuation,
population density, and infrastructure. Other letters, mainly from
organizations, comment more extensively and raise additional issues for
consideration in renewing licenses. These issues include requiring an
intergrated plant assessment of both moving and non-moving parts;
basing the regulations on the best scientific and technical knowledge
and data available; the use of seismic hazard analyses; public
participation; designs of older plants; site-specific reviews, and
waste management.
Several commenters stated that they are concerned that the current
relicensing regulations are not in the best interest of the public and
its health and safety. They state that nuclear plants should meet the
highest standards. They define these standards as those that are based
on the most current experience and knowledge.
One commenter focused in detail on the changes he thinks should be
made to the NRC's license renewal regulations: requiring a moving parts
assessment; addressing storage of spent nuclear fuel, the changes in
population density and traffic patterns in the supplemental
environmental impact study, and evaluating the feasibility of the
current emergency evacuation for communities surrounding operating
plants.
Another commenter stated that license extension is not a right. The
commenter believes that site-specific analysis is necessary and
improved knowledge must be applied. The NRC should not ``lower the bar
for currently operating plants, and they should be required to meet or
exceed the very same standards a new operator would.''
Letters in Support of Denying the Petitions
Of the nine letters supporting denial, seven letters came from
industry organizations and two from individuals. The industry
organizations are Entergy, Exelon, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
(who sent 2 letters, 1 for each petition), Southern California Edison,
Tennessee Valley Authority, and Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing,
a group of six utilities. Those letters mainly argue that the proposed
amendments are misguided and contrary to sound regulatory and public
policy. Specifically, these commenters argue that the petitioners
misconstrue the 1991 license renewal rule; the petitioners propose
regulating factors that are beyond NRC's jurisdiction and not
appropriate for rulemaking; the proposed rulemaking would duplicate the
regulation of matters that are subject of ongoing regulatory oversight;
and that the petitions lack bases upon which the Commission should
conclude that its earlier determinations were incorrect or
inappropriate.
NEI, commenting on behalf of the nuclear industry, states that the
petitions should be denied because the regulatory framework of the
existing NRC license renewal process is appropriately focused and
adequately protects public health and safety. NEI also states that the
petitions fail to provide a valid basis for expanding license renewal
reviews to duplicate the Commission's initial plant licensing review on
certain topics.
One letter from an individual opposes Mayor Scarpelli's proposal
and specific issues. He states that his concerns with the Mayor's
proposal are that they would result in the inevitable closing of
nuclear power plants in New Jersey and nationwide, and in the resulting
rise in energy costs to consumers. The commenter states that the Mayor
has ample opportunity to voice his concerns through the current renewal
process.
[[Page 74851]]
The commenter also states that because Oyster Creek appears to be the
mayor's primary focus, amending NRC regulations would be ``a
horrendously overinclusive remedy to a local problem.'' Finally, the
commenter cites both local and statewide public support for the renewal
of Oyster Creek's license.
IV. Discussion
The NRC has reviewed the petitions and the public comments and
appreciates the concerns raised. However, the NRC is denying both
petitions under Sec. 2.803. The reasons for the denials are described
in more detail in the discussion that follows. Briefly, the petitions
raise issues that the Commission already considered at length in
developing the license renewal rule (December 13, 1991; 56 FR 64943).
These issues are managed by the on-going regulatory process or under
other regulations; or are issues beyond the Commission's regulatory
authority. The petitioners did not present any new information that
would contradict positions taken by the Commission when the license
renewal rule was established or demonstrate that sufficient reason
exists to modify the current regulations.
Summary of the License Renewal Process
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the NRC
issues licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40
years and allows these licenses to be renewed for another 20 years upon
application by the licensee. The 40-year license term was selected on
the basis of economic and antitrust considerations, not technical
limitations (56 FR 64960-64962; December 13, 1991).
The Commission has explained its regulatory philosophy in license
renewal at length in the final rule issued December 13, 1991 (56 FR
64943), as well as revisions to the final rule issued May 8, 1995 (60
FR 22461). That philosophy is that the issues material to the renewal
of a nuclear power plant operating license are to be confined to those
issues that the Commission determines are uniquely relevant to
protecting the public health and safety and preserving common defense
and security during the period of extended operation. This basic
philosophy led the Commission to the formulation of two principles of
license renewal as described in the 1995 document:
1. The current regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the
licensing bases of all currently operating plants provide and maintain
an acceptable level of safety, except for possibly the detrimental
effects of aging on certain structures, systems, and components and
possibly a few other issues related to safety only during extended
operation. Issues relevant to current plant operations are addressed by
the regulatory process and will be carried forward into the extended
period of operation. Examples of current issues include emergency
planning and nuclear plant security. These issues are managed by
current regulatory processes and will continue to be managed by them
during the period of extended operation. Additional reviews for license
renewal are not necessary.
2. Each plant-specific licensing basis must be maintained during
the renewal term in the same manner and to the same extent as during
the original licensing term.
The Commission has decided to limit the scope of the license
renewal process because other issues would, by definition, be relevant
to the safety and security of current plant operation. Given the
Commission's responsibility to oversee the safety and security of
operating reactors, issues that are relevant to both current plant
operation and operation during the extended period must be addressed as
they arise within the present license term rather than at the time of
renewal. In some cases, safety or security might be endangered if
resolution of a safety or security matter were postponed until the
final renewal decision. Thus, duplicating the Commission's
responsibilities in both oversight of current plant operations as well
as license renewal would not only be unnecessary, but would waste
Commission resources.
NRC Evaluation of Issues Raised in the Petitions and Comments
The Commission has analyzed and addressed the substance of these
issues on numerous occasions in the past. Neither the petitions nor the
comments raise new issues, nor provide any tangible reason why the
careful formulation of the scope of license renewal should be addressed
once again. Other procedural mechanisms are available to the public to
raise concerns related to the current operations or the renewal of a
license for nuclear power plants. An interested party could, for
instance, file a request under Sec. 2.206, requesting that the NRC
take action to institute a proceeding, under Sec. 2.202 to modify,
suspend or revoke a license, or for any other action as may be proper.
Furthermore, any interested person may report a safety or security
concern, or allegation to the NRC at anytime. The Commission's
regulations also provide for numerous opportunities for interested
parties to become involved in licensing actions and rulemaking
proceedings.
The NRC has reviewed each of the petitioners' requests and provides
the following analysis:
1. The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to
provide that a renewed license will be issued only if the plant
operator demonstrates that the plant meets all criteria and
requirements that would be applicable if the plant was being proposed
de novo for initial construction. In particular, Sec. 54.29 should be
amended to provide that a renewed license may be issued if the
Commission finds that, upon a de novo review, the plant would be
entitled to an initial operating license in accordance with all
criteria applicable to initial operating licenses, as set out in the
Commission's regulations, including 10 CFR parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30,
40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 73, 100 and the appendices to these regulations.
NRC Review: The Commission explicitly considered and rejected the
possibility that an application for license renewal would be treated as
if it were an initial application for an operating license when it
issued the license renewal rule on December 13, 1991; 56 FR 64943. In
the statement of considerations (SOC) to that document, the Commission
explained:
It is not necessary for the Commission to review each renewal
application against standards and criteria that apply to newer
plants or future plants in order to ensure that operation during the
period of extended operation is not inimical to the public health
and safety. Since initial licensing, each operating plant has
continually been inspected and reviewed as a result of new
information gained from operating experience. Ongoing regulatory
processes provide reasonable assurance that, as new issues and
concerns arise, measures needed to ensure that operation is not
inimical to the public health and safety and common defense and
security are ``backfitted'' onto the plants. (December 13, 1991; 56
FR 64945)
The Commission revised the license renewal rule in 1995, in part to
eliminate any ambiguity as to the scope of license renewal. The
Commission emphasized that it ``continues to believe that aging
management of certain important systems, structures, and components
during this period of extended operation should be the focus of a
renewal proceeding and that issues concerning operation during the
currently authorized term of operation should be addressed as part of
the current license rather than deferred until a renewal review.''
[[Page 74852]]
(May 8, 1995; 60 FR 22481) However, out of concern for the possibility
that the rule ``could be erroneously interpreted as requiring a general
demonstration of compliance with the [Continuing Licensing Basis] as a
prerequisite for issuing a renewed license,'' the Commission amended
Sec. 54.29 (Standards for issuance of a renewed license) to clarify
the specific findings required for renewing a license, and by adding
Sec. 54.30 (Matters not subject to a renewal review), which specified
that the licensee's responsibilities for addressing safety matters
under its current licensing basis is not within the scope of license
renewal.
Seeking to revisit this determination, the petitioners suggest that
the Commission reverse its course, and set forth a new standard for
issuance of a renewed license that would be essentially the same as
what the Commission rejected in formulating the license renewal rule.
Though the Commission appreciates the petitioners' concerns regarding
the facilities in their communities, the petitioners offer no new
information that would support inclusion of those issues in the license
renewal process and that was not previously considered.
2. The petitioners request that corresponding amendments be made to
10 CFR 54.4, 54.19, 54.21, and 54.23, and that 10 CFR 54.30 be
rescinded.
NRC Review: The NRC rejects the request that the corresponding
amendments be made because it disagrees with the petitioners'
contention that the license renewal rule should be amended.
3. The petitioners request that the criteria to be examined as part
of a renewal application should include factors such as emergency
planning, demographics, siting, site security, and spent fuel storage.
NRC Review:
Emergency Planning: The petitioners request that the Commission
consider emergency planning as part of the license renewal process.
They both expressed deep concerns that, in light of the change in
demographics, local infrastructures and governments would be unable to
support large-scale evacuations. Both petitioners suggested that, if
either facility were proposed for initial licensing today, that the
licenses would be rejected for these reasons. Thus, the petitioners
conclude that it is unreasonable to relicense facilities that would
clearly be ineligible for initial licensing.
The Commission has already considered evacuation in formulating the
license renewal rule and determined that emergency preparedness need
not be reviewed again for license renewal (December 13, 1991; 56 FR
64966). Current requirements, including periodic update requirements
provide reasonable assurance that an adequate level of emergency
preparedness exists at any operating reactor. The Commission explained
that ``[t]hrough its standards and required exercises, the Commission
ensures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any
plant even in the face of changing demographics and other site-related
factors. Thus, these drills, performance criteria, and independent
evaluations provide a process to ensure continued adequacy of emergency
preparedness in light of changes in site characteristics that may occur
during the term of the existing operating license, such as
transportation systems and demographics.'' This determination is also
incorporated in the Commission's regulations at Sec. 50.47(a),
describing emergency planning requirements, in which a new finding on
emergency planning considerations is specifically not required for
license renewal. The Commission reaffirmed its determination on
emergency planning in its May 8, 1995 (60 FR 22468) amendment of the
license renewal rule.
The regulations in Sec. Sec. 50.47, 50.54(q), and 50.54(s) through
(u), and appendix E to part 50, establish requirements and performance
for emergency preparedness. These requirements apply to all nuclear
power plant licensees and require the specified levels of protection
from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license
date. The requirements of Sec. 50.47 and appendix E to part 50 are
independent of the renewal of the operating license, and continue to
apply during the license renewal term. The NRC's regulatory oversight
program (ROP) monitors the continued adequacy of a licensee's EP
program. In addition, licensees must review the facility's EP program
periodically, including working with State and local governments, and
have biennial exercises with offsite authorities.
In addition, the Commission recently reasserted its position on
emergency preparedness in the relicensing of the Millstone Nuclear
Power Station. In that case, the Commission stated, ``[T]he primary
reason we excluded emergency-planning issues from license renewal
proceedings was to limit the scope of those proceedings to `age-related
degradation unique to license renewal.' Emergency planning is, by its
very nature, neither germane to age-related degradation nor unique to
the period covered by the Millstone license renewal application.''
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station,
Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 560-561 (2005). If the
Commission were to consider emergency planning during the license
renewal review, it is not evident that the petitioners' assertions as
to the licensability of either site have any factual basis. The
petitioners ask rhetorically whether the local societal and
infrastructure factors that influenced the original plant licensing
changed in a manner that would make the plant less apt to be licensed
today. As examples of these factors, the petitioners cited changes in
the demographics since the facilities were initially licensed, and
deficiencies in the local infrastructure. Yet these broad, conclusory
statements without a factual or technical basis are insufficient to
support a petition for rulemaking under the Commission's regulations. A
petition for rulemaking, as set forth at Sec. 2.802(c)(3), must
contain ``relevant technical, scientific or other data involved which
is reasonably available to the petitioner.'' Neither petitioner has
presented this type of information.
Setting the sufficiency of the petition aside, it is not evident
that demographics and siting would necessarily preclude the issuance of
an initial operating license at either site. The Commission has
addressed these issues, however, in other rulemakings. The final rule
on reactor site criteria for nuclear power plants, 10 CFR part 100
(December 11, 1996; 61 FR 65157) addressed examining demographics and
siting, both for future reactor facilities and license renewal.
Regarding new facilities, the rule states:
The Commission is not establishing specific numerical criteria
for evaluation of population density in siting future reactor
facilities because the acceptability of a specific site from the
standpoint of population density must be considered in the overall
context of safety and environmental considerations. The Commission's
intent is to assure that a site that has significant safety,
environmental or economic advantages is not rejected solely because
it has a higher population density than other available sites.
Population density is but one factor that must be balanced against
the other advantages and disadvantages of a particular site in
determining the site's acceptability. Thus, it must be recognized
that sites with higher population density, so long as they are
located away from very densely populated centers, can be approved by
the Commission if they present advantages in terms of other
considerations applicable to the evaluation of proposed sites. (61
FR 65162)
Regarding future population growth, the 1996 final rule explains:
[[Page 74853]]
Population growth in the site vicinity will be periodically
factored into the emergency plan for the site, but since higher
population density sites are not unacceptable, per se, the
Commission does not intend to consider license conditions or
restrictions upon an operating reactor solely upon the basis that
the population density around it may reach or exceed levels that
were not expected at the time of site approval. Finally the
Commission wishes to emphasize that population considerations as
well as other siting requirements apply only for the initial siting
for new plants and will not be used in evaluating applications for
the renewal of existing nuclear power plant licenses. (61 FR 65163)
Security: Like emergency planning issues, security matters are
covered by current review and update requirements. The Commission has
rules, regulations and orders that are in place concerning physical
protection (security) programs, specifically, parts 26 and 73, orders,
and an on-going regulatory process that addresses the petitioners'
concerns.
The Commission specifically addressed physical security
considerations in the license renewal process in its 1991 final rule.
There, it stated that:
``Licensees must establish and maintain a system for the
physical protection of plants and materials, in accordance with 10
CFR part 73, to protect the plant from acts of radiological sabotage
and prevent the theft of special nuclear material.''
``Application for a renewed license will not affect the
standards for physical protection required by the NRC. The level of
protection will be maintained during the renewal term in the same
manner as during the original license term, since these requirements
remain in effect during the renewal term by the language of Sec.
54.35. The requirements of 10 CFR part 73 will continue to be
reviewed and changed to incorporate new information, as necessary.
The NRC will continue to ensure compliance of all licensees, whether
operating under an original license or a renewed one, through
ongoing inspections and reviews. Therefore, the Commission concludes
that a review of the adequacy of existing security plans is not
necessary as part of the license renewal review process.'' (56 FR
64967)
The Commission has regulations governing security and neither
petition provides new information to justify including physical
security considerations into the license renewal process.
The NRC has reviewed and updated security requirements and
continues to do so. The Commission has recently restated its position
on the relevance of security issues in license renewal and explained
that ``security issues at nuclear power reactors, while vital, are
simply not among the age-related questions at stake in a license
renewal proceeding.'' Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 638
(2004).
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. commercial
nuclear facilities escalated to the highest level of security. Since
then, the NRC has issued more than 35 Advisories, Orders, and
Regulatory Issue Summaries to further strengthen security at U.S. power
reactors. In April 2003, the NRC required by order that power reactors
revise their physical security plans, guard training and qualification
plans, and contingency plans. Furthermore, the Commission will soon
issue a final rule revising the Design Basis Threat (DBT) regulations
in 10 CFR 73.1 (See proposed rule, 70 FR 67380; November 7, 2005), and
will soon publish a proposed rule for comment amending most of its
security regulations for power reactors. (See Proposed Rulemaking--
Power Reactor Security Requirements, SECY-06-0126).
The previously cited Commission decisions and agency activities
support denial of this section of the petition because security issues
are monitored through an on-going regulatory process.
Storage of SNF. The petitioners also contend that the Commission
should consider the impact of the long-term storage of SNF, either in
pools or at independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs)
during license renewal.
NRC Review: In addition to being excluded by definition from the
scope of license renewal under part 54, the Commission has also
specifically decided to preclude the storage of spent fuel from license
renewal in Sec. 51.95(c)(2) of the Commission's regulations, which
states that ``The supplemental EIS prepared at the license renewal
stage need not discuss * * * any aspect of the storage of spent fuel
for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in Sec.
51.23(a) and in accordance with Sec. 51.23(b).'' Section 51.23
contains the Commission's ``Waste Confidence Rule,'' in which the
Commission had made a generic finding that ``spent fuel generated in
any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental
impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation
(which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that
reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite
ISFSIs.'' The rule therefore does not require analysis of these impacts
as part of the environmental report, environmental assessment, or
environmental impact statement. The Commission's reasoning for this
finding has been documented in great detail and periodically
reconsidered since the rule was first issued in 1984. See final rule,
Waste Confidence Decision, (49 FR 34658; August 31, 1984); ``Waste
Confidence Decision Review,'' (September 18, 1990; 55 FR 38474);
``Waste Confidence Decision Review; Status,'' (December 6, 1999; 64 FR
68005); and ``State of Nevada; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking,''
(PRM-51-08) (August 17, 2005; 70 FR 48329).
Additionally, the NRC notes that the licensing and regulatory
oversight of ISFSIs are dealt with under part 72, and that the
Commission has specifically determined on several occasions that these
issues are therefore outside the scope of license renewal for power
reactors. See Nuclear Management Company, LLC. (Palisades Nuclear
Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 733-734 (2006); and Duke Energy Corp.
(Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 344
n.4 (1999).
4. Changes to State and Local Law Affecting Continued Operation:
Both petitions requested that changes to State and local regulations
should be considered during the license renewal process. Mr. Spano
stated a concern that ``Indian Point must convert from once-through
cooling to a closed-cycle design using cooling towers.''
NRC Review: Licensees must comply with applicable local and State
regulations. However, nuclear power plant safety is the exclusive
province of the Federal Government and cannot be regulated by the
States. Under the AEA, the NRC has exclusive authority over the health
and safety regulations of nuclear power plants and AEA materials. A
State law that directly or indirectly sets nuclear power plant safety
standards would thus be facially invalid. However, a State law that
regulates the generation, sale, or transmission of nuclear energy
produced by a NRC-licensed nuclear power facility would not be pre-
empted by the AEA. Thus, to the extent that a nuclear power plant
licensee was subject to a State law not pre-empted by the AEA, that
licensee would have a continuing obligation to comply with that law.
NRC consideration of the applicable State or local laws at the license
renewal stage is therefore not necessary or appropriate during license
renewal.
Regarding the conversion to closed cycle design, the NRC believes
that Mr. Spano is incorrect in two respects. First, the regulation to
which he refers is a Federal, not a local or state regulation:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on impingement
entrainment
[[Page 74854]]
(40 CFR Part 122; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--
Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake
Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; 69 FR 41575; July 9, 2004).
Second, the regulation has performance standards that can be met in
various ways, one of which is closed-cycle cooling. Thus, it would be
incorrect to suggest that EPA's regulations require conversion to a
closed-cycle design.
5. The petitioners contend that factors such as an increase in
public awareness, technology improvements, and changes in plant
economic values are inappropriately excluded from the part 54 license
renewal process.
NRC Review: Evolving factors such as public awareness, technology
improvements, and plant economic values are beyond the purview of the
Commission's regulatory authority.
The NRC notes that the regulatory process considers new scientific
and technical knowledge since plants were initially licensed and
imposes new requirements on licensees as justified. The NRC engages in
a large number of regulatory activities that, when considered together,
constitute a regulatory process that provides ongoing assurance that
the licensing basis of nuclear power plants provides an acceptable
level of safety. This process includes research, inspections, audits,
investigations, evaluations of operating experience, and regulatory
actions to resolve identified issues. These activities include
consideration of new scientific or technical information. The NRC's
activities may result in changes to the licensing basis for nuclear
power plants through issuance of new or revised regulations, and the
issuance of orders or confirmatory action letters. Operating
experience, research, or the results of new analyses are also issued by
the NRC through documents such as bulletins, generic letters,
regulatory information summaries, and information notices. In this way,
the NRC's consideration of new information provides ongoing assurance
that the licensing basis for the design and operation of all nuclear
power plants provide an acceptable level of safety. This process
continues for plants that receive a renewed license. In addition, the
economic viability of nuclear power is not within the regulatory
jurisdiction of the NRC. However, NRC regulations require adequate
funds to ensure the decommissioning of commercial facilities (e.g.,
commercial power reactors and ISFSIs) and for the safe management of
SNF. A consideration of costs and benefits of a proposed action and its
alternatives are normally part of the NRC's review according to NEPA;
however, these factors have been excluded from consideration in the
NEPA review for license renewal (see 10 CFR 51.45(c), 51.53(c)(2), and
51.95(c)(2)).
6. PRM-54-03 states that the NRC should revise part 54 to require
consideration of a ``worst-case scenario'' in connection with license
renewal, to the same extent that these issues must be considered at the
initial construction/licensing stage.
NRC Review: All of the requirements regarding design basis
accidents analyzed for the original operating license continue to apply
for the period of extended operation. There is no relaxation of the
requirements applicable for the first 40 years for a licensee applying
for license renewal. Analyses that rely on the original licensing term
(i.e., 40 years) that meet the criteria contained in Sec. 54.3(a) must
be evaluated for license renewal and demonstrated acceptable in
accordance with Sec. 54.21(c).
In the environmental context, the NRC's current regulations address
accidents for license renewal. Subpart A to appendix B of part 51,
Table B-1, ``Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plants,'' under ``Postulated Accidents,'' states that the
NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis
accidents are of small significance for all plants. For severe accident
impacts, Table B-1 states that NRC has determined that ``The
probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto
open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and
economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.''
However, according to Sec. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) alternatives to mitigate
severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not
considered these alternatives.
Public Comments
Integrated Plant Assessment
A commenter states that NRC must include an assessment of moving
parts for relicensing. The commenter also states that all license
renewal applicants should be required to submit an integrated plant
assessment that includes both moving and non-moving parts before being
relicensed.
NRC Review: The Commission explicitly considered whether to include
active structures and components within the scope of a license renewal
review when it amended the license renewal rule in 1995. The Commission
concluded that structures and components associated only with active
functions can be generically excluded from a license renewal aging
management review. Functional degradation resulting from the effects of
aging on active functions is more readily determinable, and existing
programs and requirements are expected to directly detect the effects
of aging. Considerable experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of
these programs, including the performance-based requirements of the
maintenance rule contained in 10 CFR 50.65. For example, many licensee
programs that ensure compliance with technical specifications are based
on surveillance activities that monitor performance of structures and
components that perform active functions. As a result of the continued
applicability of existing programs and regulatory requirements, the
Commission determined that active functions of structures and
components will be reasonably assured during the period of extended
operation.
Performance and condition monitoring for structures and components
typically involve functional verification, either directly or
indirectly. Direct verification is practical for active functions such
as pump flow, valve stroke time, or relay actuation where the parameter
of concern (required function), including any design margins, can be
directly measured or observed. For passive functions, the relationship
between the measurable parameters and the required function is less
directly verified. Passive functions, such as pressure boundary and
structural integrity are generally verified indirectly, by confirmation
of physical dimensions or component physical condition (e.g., piping
structural integrity can be predicted based on measured wall thickness
and condition of structural supports). It should be noted that although
the parts of structures and components that only perform active
functions do not require an aging management review, structures and
components that perform both passive and active functions do require an
aging management review for their intended passive functions only. For
example, the casings of safety related pumps and valves perform a
passive pressure boundary function and require aging management, but
the internals of those pumps and valves, which have an active function,
do not.
Therefore, the effects of aging on active structures and components
are being managed by existing programs and any aging effects will
continue to be managed by these programs for the period of extended
operation. The commenter did not provide any
[[Page 74855]]
information to justify revising the scope of the license renewal rule.
Use of Current Scientific and Technical Knowledge
One commenter states that regulations must be based on best
scientific and technical knowledge and data available, instead of
allowing currently operating plants to be grandfathered into compliance
based on scientific data from the 1970s that is proven to be outdated.
NRC Review: The NRC believes that the regulations are based on the
best scientific and technical knowledge and data available. The
regulatory process does consider new scientific and technical knowledge
and data available since plants were initially licensed, and imposes
new requirements on licensees as justified. All of the Commission's
regulations undergo a lengthy and detailed rulemaking process required
by the Administrative Procedure Act. During that process, the staff
conducts a detailed technical review based in part on its years of
experience, and input from the scientific community, public comment on
the rulemaking, and industry. For further details, see the previous
discussion under comment 6, concerning technology improvements.
This commenter also suggests that the license renewal process
simply ``grandfathers'' older plants into compliance with the current
regulations. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the NRC does not
``grandfather'' plants as part of the license renewal. As explained
previously, the review conducted within the scope of renewing an
operating license does not relieve a licensee from compliance with its
current licensing basis, which mandates compliance with the
Commission's current regulations. If changes in technology or
scientific knowledge occur resulting in new NRC requirements, each
licensee must evaluate the new requirements and comply based on the
design and licensing basis of their plant.
Seismic Hazard Analyses
One commenter states that updated seismic hazards analyses are not
required of licensees, despite the issuance of new regulations that
acknowledge the change in scientific knowledge on the differing effects
of earthquakes on plant structures. The commenter further states that
new seismic regulations (December 11, 1996; 61 FR 65157) only apply to
new nuclear power plants.
NRC Review: The December 1996 regulation (part 100) provides basic
siting criteria for decisions about future sites and future nuclear
power plants. The SOCs of the 1996 final rule stated that to replace
the existing regulation with an entirely new regulation would not be
acceptable because the provisions of the existing regulations form part
of the licensing bases for many of the operating nuclear power plants
and others that are in various stages of obtaining operating licenses.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that these provisions should remain
in effect for currently operating facilities. To ensure the continued
safety of currently operating nuclear power plants, the NRC required
industry to re-examine their seismic designs as part of the Individual
Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program. The results of
the IPEEE studies are summarized in NUREG-1742, ``Perspectives Gained
from the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE)
Program.'' Based on the evaluations of the IPEEE program, the NRC staff
determined that seismic designs of operating nuclear power plants still
provide an adequate level of protection. Since the IPEEE program, the
NRC staff has continued to assess the most recent models for estimating
seismic ground motion from earthquakes as well as recent models for
earthquake sources in seismic regions such as New Madrid, MO, and
Charleston, SC. To evaluate the impact of the most recent seismic
studies, cited previously, on currently operating nuclear power plants,
the NRC has initiated a generic issue resolution process (Generic Issue
199, ``Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates
in Central and Eastern United States,'' ML051600272).
Public Participation
A commenter voiced the concern that the current treatment of
license renewal ``unfairly excluded and denies the public and its
experts from critical analysis of the risks and benefits of 20
additional years of operational wear and tear on safety-related
equipment and from critical analysis of the risks * * * as well as
extending and enlarging the adverse environmental impacts from nuclear
waste generation * * * and the vulnerability of onsite nuclear waste
storage systems to domestic security threats.''
NRC Review: The NRC rulemaking process appropriately includes the
public. The public has many opportunities to comment, such as public
meetings and hearings under part 54. For special cases concerning
security and safeguards (such as rulemaking, orders, and generic
communications), procedures are implemented to appropriately ensure the
safeguarding of nuclear material and information. In these cases, only
persons with a need to know and with the proper security clearance are
authorized access to subject proceedings.
The public also had ample opportunity to comment under the various
part 54 rulemakings, which evaluated prolonged waste storage.
Public participation is an important part of the license renewal
process. Members of the public have several opportunities to question
how aging will be managed during the period of extended operation.
Information provided by the licensee is made available to the public in
various ways. The license renewal application and subsequent
correspondence regarding the application are available to the public
from the NRC's PDR or from ADAMS, which can be accessed through the
NRC's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). Shortly after the NRC receives a
renewal application, a public meeting is held near the nuclear power
plant to give the public information about the license renewal process
and provide opportunities for public involvement. Additional public
meetings are held by the NRC during the review of the renewal
application. As part of the environmental review of each license
renewal application a separate public meeting is held near the nuclear
power plant seeking renewal to identify environmental issues specific
to the plant for the license renewal action. The result is an NRC
recommendation on whether the environmental impacts are so great that
they preclude license renewal. This recommendation is presented in a
draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS which is published for
comment and discussed at another public meeting. After consideration of
comments on the draft, NRC prepares and publishes a final plant-
specific supplement to the GEIS. NRC evaluations, findings, and
recommendations are published when completed. All public meetings are
posted on NRC's Web site. Key meetings are announced in press releases
and in the Federal Register.
Concerns may be litigated in an adjudicatory hearing if any party
that would be adversely affected requests a hearing as is indicated in
the notice of opportunity for hearing for each individual license
renewal application. The opportunity for hearing is also announced in a
press release which is initially posted on the NRC's home page on the
Web. In establishing the current hearing process under part 2, the
[[Page 74856]]
Commission adopted many changes and undertook additional activities
intended to enhance public participation. For example, the final rule
extends from 30 to 60 days the time between issuing a Federal Register
notice for a reactor licensing proceeding and the time for submitting a
request for hearing and a petition to intervene. The Commission adopted
a mandatory disclosure provision in part 2 that provides for early and
comprehensive disclosure of information by all parties, thus avoiding
the substantial resources and delay that often is associated with
discovery. The Commission also created a prominently displayed button
on its Web site titled ``Hearing Opportunities,'' where the public can
find notices of intent to file applications, notices of docketing of
applications, and notices of opportunity to request a hearing and
petition to intervene in major licensing and regulatory actions.
Designs of Older Plants
One commenter on PRM-54-03 was concerned about the designs of older
plants, asking whether GE Mark I and II could be approved today and
given license extensions.
NRC Response: The NRC emphasizes that it would be incorrect to
conclude that any currently operating facility regulated by the NRC,
including OCNGS, is less safe than a newly constructed plant. The NRC's
continuous regulatory oversight process often requires licensees to
correct design deficiencies that could impact continued safe operation.
Since OCNGS began operation in December 1969, the licensee has replaced
and overhauled many pieces of equipment. The licensee has also
installed new, modern systems to replace or supplement original systems
that are obsolete or no longer considered adequate. The NRC requires
plant operators to continuously test and monitor the condition of
safety equipment and to maintain equipment in top condition.
If a licensee applies for license renewal, the NRC reviews both the
relevant safety and environmental issues associated with the
application. Specifically, the licensee must provide the NRC with an
evaluation of the technical aspects of plant aging. The licensee must
also describe the aging management programs and activities that will be
relied on to manage aging. In addition, to support plant operation for
an additional 20 years, the licensee must prepare an evaluation of the
potential impact on the environment. The NRC reviews the application
and makes a determination concerning the protection of public health
and safety and the protection of the environment. The NRC documents its
reviews in a safety evaluation report and supplemental environmental
impact statement, and performs verification inspections at the
licensee's facilities. If NRC approves a renewed license, the licensee
must continue to comply with all existing regulations and commitments
associated with the current operating license as well as those
additional activities required as a result of license renewal. Licensee
activities continue to be subject to NRC oversight in the period of
extended operation.
Site-Specific Reviews
One commenter states that site-specific environmental analysis is
necessary.
NRC Review: The NRC performs plant-specific reviews of the
environmental impacts of license renewal in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements of part
51. Certain issues are evaluated generically for all plants, rather
than separately in each plant's renewal application. The generic
evaluation, NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), assesses the scope and
impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license
renewal at any nuclear power plant site such as endangered species,
impacts of cooling water systems on fish and shellfish, and ground
water quality. A plant-specific supplement to the generic environmental
impact statement is required for each application for license renewal.
The GEIS was developed to establish an effective licensing process.
It contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the environmental
consequences of renewing an operating license and operating a nuclear
power facility for an additional 20 years. Those environmental issues
that could be resolved generically were analyzed in detail and were
resolved in the GEIS. Those issues that are unique because of a site-
specific attribute, a particular site setting or unique facility
interface with the environment, or variability from site to site, are
deferred and are resolved at the time that an applicant seeks license
renewal. In the license renewal process, these issues are addressed by
the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact
statement (SEIS).
The GEIS is used to avoid duplication and allow the staff to focus
specifically on those issues that are important for a particular plant
(i.e., issues that are not generic). This is an appropriate and
effective use of the concept of tiering that was issued by the
President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in its 1978
regulations that implemented the requirements of NEPA. Tiering is the
process of addressing a general program (such as a nuclear power plant
license renewal) in a generic (or programmatic) environmental impact
statement (EIS), and then analyzing a detailed element of the program
(such as a site-specific action related to the general program) as a
supplement to the generic EIS. The CEQ has stated that its intent in
formalizing the tiering concept was to encourage agencies ``to
eliminate repetitive discussions and to focus on the actual issues ripe
for decisions at each level of environmental review.''
In addition, the environmental review of each license renewal
application affords several opportunities for public input as described
previously.
Nuclear Waste Management
One commenter asserted that the license renewal process disallows
public adjudicatory involvement in the extension of nuclear waste
generation at reactor sites seeking license renewal without a
scientifically approved and demonstrated nuclear waste management
program because of reliance on the Waste Confidence Decision of 1990.
The commenter stated: ``[t]he license extension process needs to be
broadened in its scope and not hide behind an increasing dubious
Nuclear Waste Confidence Decision by providing for the public
intervention process to independently analyze and challenge inadequate
site-specific onsite ``spent'' fuel storage systems including storage
ponds and dry cask storage systems.''
Another commenter added his concerns about requiring the most up-
to-date science to spent fuel pools and dry cask storage and questions
the updating of regulations regarding seismic criteria for ISFSIs.
Another commenter cited an April 2005 report to Congress by the
National Academy of Sciences entitled ``Safety and Security of
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage.'' The commenter stated that the
NRC should amend the regulations on the basis of that report to require
that security of spent fuel pools and dry cask storage be
comprehensively assessed during the relicensing process.
NRC Review: As explained in the denial of PRM-51-08 (August 17,
2005; 70 FR 48329), the Commission stated in its 1999 Waste Confidence
Decision Status Report that it would consider undertaking a
comprehensive
[[Page 74857]]
reevaluation of the Waste Confidence findings if either of two criteria
were met: (1) When the impending repository development and regulatory
activities run their course; or (2) If significant and pertinent
unexpected events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing
validity of the Waste Confidence findings (December 6, 1991; 64 FR
68007). Because activities involving the high-level waste repository
have not run their course, a petitioner would have to demonstrate that
``significant and pertinent unexpected events'' have occurred that have
raised ``substantial doubt about the continuing validity of the Waste
Confidence findings'' for the Commission to reevaluate its conclusions.
Neither PRM-54-02 or PRM-54-03 has provided any demonstration
warranting reopening of this decision. Finally, delays of the waste
depository at Yucca Mountain are not relevant to these petitions
because waste is governed by separate NRC regulations and outside the
scope of part 54, and the Waste Confidence Decision determined that
spent fuel can be safely stored onsite for 100 years. The petitioners
have not shown that waste would be better regulated under part 54.
For spent fuel issues, see previous discussion.
With respect to the comment regarding the National Academy of
Sciences Report, the NRC notes that this is a classified report on
spent fuel transportation security that was delivered to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in July 2004, and that an
unclassified summary was published in March 2005. The NRC sent a report
to Congress on March 14, 2005, describing the specific actions the NRC
took to respond to the Academy's recommendations. The Academy's study
is one of many instruments that supplements NRC's understanding of the
safety of the interim storage of spent fuel.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying the petitions for rulemaking (PRM-54-02 and PRM-
54-03) because they raise issues that the Commission already considered
at length in developing the license renewal rule (December 13, 1991; 56
FR 64943), that are managed by the ongoing regulatory process or under
other regulations, or that are beyond the Commission's regulatory
authority.
The petitioners did not present any new information that would
contradict positions taken by the Commission when the regulation was
established or demonstrate that sufficient reason exists to modify the
current regulations.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of December 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. E6-21151 Filed 12-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P